Topic: M. Night, Lady in The Water? (Read 12340 times)

kokeyjoe · « **on:** 26 Dec 2006, 18:29 »

I just watched "Lady in the Water" on Saturday night, as a rented flick at my girlfriend's house. I had semi-high hopes for the movie, as I was a fan of M. Night Shyamalamadingdong and his work with "The Sixth Sense," "Unbreakable," and "Signs," but I was generally very let down by "The Village."

I want to try to keep this thread and post constructive and intelligent, but I'm sorry, all I can say about "The Lady in The Water" is that it was utter shit. It was most likely the worst movie of 2006 (that I saw). I didn't even know Paul Giamatti was in the film before I watched it, and after seeing it, I'm glad he was. He was the only entertaining part of the movie, and even his character was pretty lousy -- he made the character and his lines interesting. Even the effects were pretty hokey, by today's standards. And I'm getting really sick of that actress who played Story, with whom M. Night is for whatever reason infatuated.

I wanted to like this movie, I really did. I tried. But it was just bad. Am I the only one who sadly thinks M. Night peaked at Signs (or even earlier) and should just hang it up? His stuff always had this somewhat "film school" feel to it, but it's only gotten worse lately. Poor M. Night.

Jenno · « **Reply #1 on:** 26 Dec 2006, 18:52 »

Signs was pretty terrible as well. Although I must say I was enjoying it immensely until they showed the alien.

kokeyjoe · « **Reply #2 on:** 26 Dec 2006, 19:39 »

Yeah, you're right. I tend to think I enjoyed Signs quite a bit, but then I remember the ending did leave me a bit "meh." All the "Swing away, Merill" business mixed with seeing the alien kinda left a bad taste in my mouth. But at least M. Night showed the alien in a kind of cool way, with the shadows and usage of some silhouette-age. I still think it's way better than movie we find as the subject of this thread, though.

SaskiWhiteflower · « **Reply #3 on:** 26 Dec 2006, 19:42 »

Lady in the Water was actually pretty good story in a junky wrapping...

And when it ended I was like

"I hope there will be something after this THE END sign

"

Will · « **Reply #4 on:** 26 Dec 2006, 19:54 »

I could possibly be the only one I know of who actually liked this movie. It wasn't the greatest thing I've ever seen, but it was enjoyable to me. Part of this might be because I didn't really go into this movie expecting to hold it to the same standards as every other M. Night film I've seen - no real reason for that, I just didn't - so I wasn't as primed for disappointment, but also, I just enjoyed the basic story behind it. It was campy at times, and the whole part that M. Night wrote in for himself did reek of self-importance, but I still liked the story. C'est la vie...

KharBevNor · « **Reply #5 on:** 26 Dec 2006, 20:56 »

Anyone thinking that Lady in the Water was the worst film of 2006 really hasn't seen the remake of The Wicker Man.

kokeyjoe · « **Reply #6 on:** 26 Dec 2006, 23:22 »

Show me this film and I will hate it gladly!

Johnny C · « **Reply #7 on:** 27 Dec 2006, 02:17 »

There are a number of films I would gladly call utter shit before I talk trash about Lady In The Water.

kokeyjoe · « **Reply #8 on:** 27 Dec 2006, 04:00 »

As there are for me, as well, but I did not just watch all of those on Saturday night and then visit the QC forums on Tuesday morning. I also saw "Little Miss Sunshine" this weekend, and that was all aces in my book. Hmm, maybe I should start a *positive* thread. Thinking... thinking... Nah, forget it.

ScrambledGregs · « **Reply #9 on:** 27 Dec 2006, 05:45 »

I have never seen a single M. Night movie, mostly because the only reason people have given me for liking his films is the twist endings, and to me that's a horrible way to make people want to watch your movies. Especially when you can find the endings on the intarweb and save yourself the trouble.

Merkava · « **Reply #10 on:** 27 Dec 2006, 06:49 »

His twist endings are NOT the reason for seeing his movies. How about subtlety? Nuance? Atmosphere? Interesting method of storytelling?

I think the guy is immensely talented, but his movies past The Sixth Sense always have one flaw specific to each film that prevents them from being great films. Maybe it's the fact that he is truly successful when he is in the process of unraveling or building up, but he can't seem to reach a conclusion. This was his problem at least until Signs. The Village was just dull and...well...I haven't even bothered to check out Lady in the Water.

WE NEED BRUCE WILLIS

STAT

KharBevNor · « **Reply #11 on:** 27 Dec 2006, 08:02 »

Quote from: kokeyjoe on 26 Dec 2006, 23:22

Show me this film and I will hate it gladly!

You don't know what you're saying. You are basically asking Nicolas Cage to fuck you in the eyes for two hours. That is how bad it is. Last time I checked it was about a 3.0 on imdb and 15% on Rotten Tomatoes.

And that is BAD.

Woah, I just checked again. It is scoring below Plan Nine From Outer Space.

That is very, very bad.

kokeyjoe · « **Reply #12 on:** 27 Dec 2006, 08:36 »

How does it fare against Battlefield Earth, though? John Travolta and Barry Pepper in bad Klingon make-up... or Nicolas Cage putting it in my eye... I'm still not sure which is worse.

Funny thing, though, my girlfriend was telling me her dad rented some more movies today and one of them was the Nic Cage version of Wickerman... and she told me that about 10 seconds after I read you talking about it. I literally laughed out loud. I wish them luck.

TheBoredOne · « **Reply #13 on:** 28 Dec 2006, 00:33 »

I liked Lady in the Water.
Didn't like the end or the graphics, but I really enjoyed the rest.

Nothing will be as good as the 6th Sense..
at least not until he stops using CGI which really takes me out of the movie.

humanoftheyear · « **Reply #14 on:** 28 Dec 2006, 11:10 »

i saw lady in the water this week and i wasn't too disappointed, but i also wasn't really interested in seeing it to begin with. i didn't much care for the whole part shyamalan [sic?] wrote for himself, but i think that the actually bedtime story was pretty awesome. i think it would have been a much better book, or graphic novel even. some of the stuff they did didn't really seem to translate well to me. loved giamatti though.

TheBoredOne · « **Reply #15 on:** 28 Dec 2006, 13:06 »

I saw Night in an interview and he said he doesn't really enjoy doing the cameos. He always wanted to play a part in the movie where he was a pivotal character, he just never had the chance really. I think it was cool that he finally got to do some acting in one of his movies.

kokeyjoe · « **Reply #16 on:** 28 Dec 2006, 17:43 »

Quote from: humanoftheyear on 28 Dec 2006, 11:10

i think it would have been a much better book, or graphic novel even.

Yeah, I'll give ya that. Normally I'm very patient with movies and very forgiving of shortcomings... like I've said, I like liking things. I'll usually make an effort to try and like something, but this story was never meant for film. Could've been a great kid's book, but when compared to his other works, it shouldn't have been made, in my opinion.

But man, I'd rent it all over again just to watch those monkeys mildly spanking the evil doggie.

Orbert · « **Reply #17 on:** 28 Dec 2006, 23:56 »

That must be one of those expressions that sounds naughty but isn't. "monkeys spanking the evil doggie".

AllBad · « **Reply #18 on:** 28 Dec 2006, 23:58 »

I think Lady in the Water could have been one hell of a movie...But that's getting stuck in the "coulda been" crap. Plain truth, it let a lot of M. Night's fans down from the glories they were expecting from it.
He's really inching toward the "over-rated" catergory now, what with all his movies since 6th Sense being much less than what fans hope for...

I still have hope that he'll whip out an insanely amazing film sometime when nobody's expecting it soon and totally reinstate himself with all his fans.
Because otherwise, I'm almost completely out of faith here.

TheBoredOne · « **Reply #19 on:** 29 Dec 2006, 09:25 »

He could totally pull off some kind of Spy thriller.

Merkava · « **Reply #20 on:** 29 Dec 2006, 09:31 »

He needs Bruce Willis.

Die-Hard 4 it is.

kokeyjoe · « **Reply #21 on:** 29 Dec 2006, 17:24 »

Quote from: Orbert on 28 Dec 2006, 23:56

That must be one of those expressions that sounds naughty but isn't. "monkeys spanking the evil doggie".

In Soviet Russia, you no spank the monkey! The monkey spank you!

Orbert · « **Reply #22 on:** 29 Dec 2006, 20:13 »

He forgot to lock the door, and his roommate stumbled in and saw him spanking the evil doggie. It was an awkward moment for all.

Will · « **Reply #23 on:** 29 Dec 2006, 21:28 »

Oh, come on, like that's never happened to anyone else here...right? guys? GUYS?

Lines · « **Reply #24 on:** 05 Jan 2007, 08:27 »

uh...sure.

i thought Lady was better than The Village. the idea behind it was better, i guess. but it still wasn't a great movie. and it was like 50 times better than the Wicker Man, which sadly i paid for. and it's safe to say the movie Birth was also 50 times worse than Lady. Lady didn't make me want to gouge my eyes out with a thorny wooden stick.

Gutter Monkey · « **Reply #25 on:** 13 Jan 2007, 04:57 »

My friend and I saw Lady as part of a triple-feature, along with two other, much better movies. And in fact, sneaking in to see the movie without paying was the only way I was willing to see the movie. And the only reason we even attempted to do that was that my friend knew somebody who was an extra in a scene that didn't get cut. And after all of that, we still felt cheated when the movie was over.

The characters are flat and uninteresting; the story makes wild leaps of logic that insult the audience's intelligence, there's at least one significant plot hole (which I forget the particulars of, but trust me, it's a doozy), and the sheer egocentrism of the thing made me want to puke.

ampersandwitch · « **Reply #26 on:** 22 Jan 2007, 06:57 »

. . .I liked it.
I enjoyed Paul Giamatti more than was necessary, and I think that's why.

TheFuriousWombat · « **Reply #27 on:** 22 Jan 2007, 07:00 »

the fact that m. night case himself as the writer who's going to change the world with his work shocked me with its excessive self-congratulatory nature. that alone pretty much ruined the movie for me.

ampersandwitch · « **Reply #28 on:** 22 Jan 2007, 07:40 »

He was a cock in that role. That's a fact. I just tried to ignore him when he was on screen.

kokeyjoe · « **Reply #29 on:** 22 Jan 2007, 17:23 »

Quote from: TheFuriousWombat on 22 Jan 2007, 07:00

the fact that m. night case himself as the writer who's going to change the world with his work shocked me with its excessive self-congratulatory nature. that alone pretty much ruined the movie for me.

Holy crap, why did I not even think of that? And yeah, I just get sick of his cameos in every movie... he always has this aloof and annoying nature to him, which I like to call bad acting. And when you augment his usual minute or two of screen-time to what it was in Lady... that's not a good thing.

TheBoredOne · « **Reply #30 on:** 24 Jan 2007, 13:22 »

He's obviously just mimicing his inspiration, Alfred Hitchcock, who also made cameos in his films.

Damn o.o you guys just seem to be making such a big deal about this. Am I the only one who thinks it was about time he actually wrote a part for himself in a movie? After all he's the writer and director.. Who cares if he wants to play a vital role in one for a change?
I watched an interview with him about the movie, and he said he enjoys acting as well, but he's never had a good reason to really act much in any of his movies, and this was his chance.

His movies have been using too much CGI lately which in my opinion is bringing the quality down.. I really liked Signs until the unrealistic looking CGI alien scene.. and I really liked Lady in the Water until we saw the beasts. If he could get a better artist to do his CGI scenes, or just not do them at all, I think the movies would be better for it.

Orbert · « **Reply #31 on:** 24 Jan 2007, 23:42 »

I have no problem with him appearing in his films in a cameo role, a la Hitchcock. But since people pretty much agree that he's not a very good actor, the role should be minimal. Just a walk-on or "guy who asks what time it is" kind of thing. Otherwise he's basically lowering the quality of his own movie by indulging his ego. That's his choice, but it's a legitimate gripe.

I agree with the CGI thing. Suspense is in your head. Not knowing what's there in the dark, or around the corner, or following you down the street, is much more frightening than "ooh look at the scary computer-generated monster".

GruntyBalboa · « **Reply #32 on:** 15 Feb 2007, 21:20 »

I liked Lady in the Water. I thought it was an ok movie. It wasn't the best of the year by far *cough*departed*coughcough*, but it wasn't the worst I've ever seen. I think people bash on it too much because its put next to the stellar movies that came out around the same time.

Merkava · « **Reply #33 on:** 18 Feb 2007, 12:31 »

Quote from: kokeyjoe on 22 Jan 2007, 17:23

Holy crap, why did I not even think of that? And yeah, I just get sick of his cameos in every movie... he always has this aloof and annoying nature to him, which I like to call bad acting.

What exactly does that mean? I don't understand the jump from being aloof to bad acting.

Mr u Suk · « **Reply #34 on:** 18 Feb 2007, 13:35 »

although i really didn't like Lady as much as 6th sence or Signs. i thought it was very good in a couple places

the fact that almost everybody who lived there was totally fucked up in some way was totally bitchin'. by far the best one was Reggie, the guy only working out one side of his body, but the movie critic was a close 2nd (thanks to the scene where he meets the beast while being mildly drunk)

i found that the movie was better if you thought of it less as a suspence movie, but a modern-age fairy tale.

..........and im going to have to admit........im a fan of the Village

Cartilage Head · « **Reply #35 on:** 19 Feb 2007, 13:13 »

I liked the Village a lot too, Suk. I also liked all of his other films, although The Sixth Sense is the only one that I was able to enjoy only once.

As far as Lady In The Water goes.. it did kind of suck. There were definitely good things about it, but in the end they were overshadowed by the flaws. Pretty much the entire movie is annoying, repetitive dialogue, and most of the action takes place with characters suddenly realizing, out of thin air, "Oh THIS is what we are supposed to do!" It drives the plot, but in a very crappy way. Otherwise the old lady knows everything.

I also don't criticize effects that much in movies.. but the wolf-thing (I can't remember what it was actually called) looked really, really shitty when it was finally completely exposed. They could have easily done better with CGI.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: M. Night, Lady in The Water? (Read 12340 times)

kokeyjoe

kokeyjoe

kokeyjoe

kokeyjoe

ScrambledGregs

Merkava

kokeyjoe

kokeyjoe

AllBad

Merkava

kokeyjoe

Gutter Monkey

kokeyjoe

Merkava

Mr u Suk